I think part of the problem here is that we have many people here on this board who think they know something about putting on a live rock 'n' roll show (because they like a song it would work in a live context) i.e., rock 'nroller posted:

"How cool it would be if they simply did "2000 Light Years" or "Dandelion" at the tail end of the show, in lieu of the usual 5-6. It would certainly be a high to all of us. The tour formula, originated in '89, can be shaken up a bit, not stirred."

Are you kidding me? This would be the WORST mistake ever! And thank god The Stones who make their living playing in front of people live know better!!!!!!!!!!!!



I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

>> people here on this board who think they know something about putting on a live rock 'n' roll show ...
The Stones who make their living playing in front of people live know better! <<

go baby go :E


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

RankOutsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think part of the problem here is that we have
> many people here on this board who think they know
> something about putting on a live rock 'n' roll
> show (because they like a song it would work in a
> live context) i.e., rock 'nroller posted:
>
> "How cool it would be if they simply did "2000
> Light Years" or "Dandelion" at the tail end of the
> show, in lieu of the usual 5-6. It would certainly
> be a high to all of us. The tour formula,
> originated in '89, can be shaken up a bit, not
> stirred."
>
> Are you kidding me? This would be the WORST
> mistake ever! And thank god The Stones who make
> their living playing in front of people live know
> better!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> "Once upon a time I was your little rooster, but
> now I'm just one of your cocks"


Ok, good point, but ... there are setlists they've played in the past that we know work (because we've seen or heard them) that would be much better than what they are usually playing now. There were some great setlists on the Licks tour, for example, that I think everyone would be thrilled to get again. You don't have to know anything about putting on a rock show to realize that.

Shake that thang

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Since the remaining shows thru Oct 21 are all arena venues will we be hearing songs that work better in a smaller setting?

It also puzzles me as to why they are not playing CYHMK on this tour. Surely they can't be bored with it already? As for Sway, that number should be kept in the arena setlist.

Does anyone have a clue as to why they dropped Gimme Shelter? Could it be due to the lyric "Oh the flood is threatening my very life today" in light of the hurricane damage?

Honestly the Stones are just lazy. They have no respect for their fans unless they giving them their money. BV, are they paying you to kiss their asses? There must be some reason so many people are disappointed in their set list. I almost thought it was a cruel joke when I saw them at Fenway. Like they are saying "ok lets put it on autopilot and give them the songs we always do, they already paid for their tickets so who cares." This is honestly how I felt and I have been following this band since the 60s.

ohnonotyouagain, why not just let The Stones do their job, huh? Since given their history they seem to know a little about what they're doing. If there were set-lists that you liked from the Licks tour I hope you saw one of the shows.

Fact is, it wouldn't matter WHAT set-list they did, there would be people on here bitching about it.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-13 21:05 by RankOutsider.

If you check setlists from other acts, you see most of them play every night exactly the same set.

I saw McCartney some years ago two nights in a row. I was amazed the first night... brilliant show. But the second night it was exactly the same. Not only the setlist, but every note was identical. If a song lasted 4.32 the first night it lasted also 4.32 the second night. Even the things he said and his jokes were exactly the same.

The stones change the setlist. Not so in the beginning of this tour, but now it changes. Ofcourse also war horses and why not? Dylan still plays Blowing in the Wind, McCartney plays Yesterday and so on.

We just expect way too much. It's just bitchin' because some people love to do that and makes them think they're very important.

You can't read a set list like you read Donald Duck. It is telling you what they played but that's it. If you think it is boring to read setlists then buy anoher copy of Donald Duck or walk the dog. And read the reviews. That makes more sense when you want to find out if it was a great show.

Bjornulf

Why compare the Stones to Mccartney??? I don't like U2 but I know they played two shows at the Garden last weekend and they were both different. But comparing bands is not a good way to justify someone's disappointment. If you really want to compare Paul, his show on this tour was much different than his last one, not the case with the Stones. And Dylan, he plays different arrangements and songs at almost every show, again bad comparison.

Nothing people can say will make up for my embarassment for the Stones. All the people that I went on and on to about the Stones as a live act basically think they were jsut a big production of the same songs over and over again, from tour to tour. Autopilot as some call it. Read the reviews, even people who are generally happy about the shows still manage to have a negative comment about the set list. Read the well-written one from last night in Philly.

for a long, long time the stones have been too big and too far removed from the fans to care....i love em, but theyre detached, unapproachable (unless youre lucky)........if everybody was licking my behind 24/7 for over 40 years i'd be screwed up too

Agree JJ Flash and I prefer to read some old Donald Ducks instead of these last set lists.

they might get bored later on and change.

I didn't compare the stones to mccartney. It was just an example that big acts play safe. And especially if they're in front of 30000+ crowds. Because 25000 of them want to hear satisfaction and miss you.
For the more devoted fans they play songs like Dead Flowers, She's So Cold, Out of Control, Sway, ...
Also from a technical point of view it's normal the setlist isn't turned upside down all the time. It's more easy for dylan because he doesn't use all this technique the stones are using.

And for dylan, I didn't say he doesn't change the setlist (read what I'm saying before you disagree). I said he also plays his old famous songs. Ok, in other arrangements, but so is Satifaction and Jumping Jack Flash an other warhorses. (I saw Dylan a couple of times and the arrangements stay more or less the same)
Stones also change setlists by the way.

To me it's just: let's complain... we are die hard fans... we should complain because we are the fans. So you can look down on people saying: great setlist. Well, you might think it was great, but trust me I'm a stones fan... and it was lame. And that makes you sound intresting. To me all this BS sound like that.
They tour, the released a great album, the play songs we rarely heard them play, they picked up some forgotton things,... if they played everything you wished for you would have something else to complain about.
The only thing I think is a pity is that they do not play enough new songs, afterall it's A Bigger Bang Tour. But that seems to be changing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-14 00:27 by BowieStone.

I would not complain if they showed some inspiration for some gems and stopped all these Miss You TD set lists. I agree that the first part of the list is starting to look better most of the times with the exception of TD and opener. Last part of the show though is a complete waste except for Cloud, Rambler and Paint at some occations, but thats half the show or more.

And you have attended... How many shows sofar, Gurra?

Its not the songs that matters, but the energy in them.
Have you heard Björks & PJ Harveys version of Satisfaction... ?

Ok, have to admit that I thought when I heard it: "If they can do this with
that weary tune, what could they do with... Lovin´ Cup?"

On the other hand, no one could do LC better than the Stones.
On the third hand the gun powder of Satisfacion will never vanish.

On the fourth hand the setlist will get better in Latin America, in Asia/Australia;
and even better in Europe. Cause we have the best audiences
(hope all US´ers are busy with their dinners etc...) .... Well, with the exception of Atlanta (hi Elmo )...

No they will keep punding the Warhorses at you. I am not saying leave them all out.

Great Post and very wise from Mr. BV!!

Basically what it comes down to is that it is hard for fans of the band to witness them becoming a repetitive oldies act when they used to be the coolest thing going.What makes it worse is that they don't even select many interesting old songs & it doesn't seem to bother them that much.Someone earlier cited Had It With You and It Must Be Hell.Those are obviously not the only options the Stones have but,I would be thrilled if they replaced Miss You and You Got Me Rocking with those two songs.I don't go to hear all of the foolish woo woo's of Miss You and the ridiculous hey hey's of You Got Me Rocking .... and it's such a sad thing to watch a good love die.I've had it up to here.

If one were to use the analogy of the band playing a round of golf, then surely they are on the back 9 more than likely on the 17th tee box.

BowieStone Wrote:
Dylan still
> plays Blowing in the Wind, McCartney plays
> Yesterday and so on.
>
>

Bob hasn't played BITW in a couple years, Bowie....

RankOutsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think part of the problem here is that we have
> many people here on this board who think they know
> something about putting on a live rock 'n' roll
> show (because they like a song it would work in a
> live context) i.e., rock 'nroller posted:
>
> "How cool it would be if they simply did "2000
> Light Years" or "Dandelion" at the tail end of the
> show, in lieu of the usual 5-6. It would certainly
> be a high to all of us. The tour formula,
> originated in '89, can be shaken up a bit, not
> stirred."
>
> Are you kidding me? This would be the WORST
> mistake ever! And thank god The Stones who make
> their living playing in front of people live know
> better!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Word.
>
>
> "Once upon a time I was your little rooster, but
> now I'm just one of your cocks"

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
"Too Rude," "Gunface"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

I think all the stones need to do is add some of the newer material to the set-list. I like having some of the warhorses, but I think they need to be reworked a little- My best stones moments live are when they try new stuff or dust off some obscure title. Plus, when they did the album theme for their live shows it brought more excitement to the warhorses and brought out some old songs - ex. love in vain, loving cup, worried about you, etc... Maybe they should go back to that and use Undercover, Black and Blue, Voodo Lounge, and Bridges to Babylon.

Talkin bout the....

What is this thing with "Had It With You" You can't be serious. That song is a 'B" side at best! And you want it in the show? Please.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Bob hasn't played BITW in a couple years,
> Bowie....


Ok, Dylan changes his 'warhorses' for every concert. But still, I think it's easier for him to do that.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't read a set list like you read Donald
> Duck. It is telling you what they played but
> that's it. If you think it is boring to read
> setlists then buy anoher copy of Donald Duck or
> walk the dog. And read the reviews. That makes
> more sense when you want to find out if it was a
> great show.
>
> Bjornulf


Ok, so to you it makes no difference if you read (at home) the Phily's setlist or a setlist where they also played eg. Ventilator Blues, Loving Cup, Laugh, I nearly died,...just because you weren' there?
Of course being there makes up for everything. We all know that. Most of us have been to many concerts.
PS: I'm not saying the setlist was boring :-)

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BowieStone Wrote:
> Dylan still
> > plays Blowing in the Wind, McCartney plays
> > Yesterday and so on.
> >
> >
>
> Bob hasn't played BITW in a couple years,
> Bowie....


And when and if he does he alwyas does new versions of his warhorses, besides he's a an artist. He made one of his best albums in 1997. Comparable to Stones making Some girls in 1978.

the Critics dont obey every move BOb makes nor Paul but when Stones play its always great these days. OK, they are always good but great??

The thing with Had It With You is that it has not been played out like some other songs have been.It is definitely not among my first choices but,what I'm saying is that I would prefer it to songs like You Got Me Rocking which was obviously copied from the song Rock & Roll part 2.I think everybody knows by now that it's only rock 'n' roll but,they like it,they can't always get what they want & that they miss someone(apparently alot).